James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the opportunity to put a few things on the record regarding the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. It deals with some administrative matters to do with disputes et cetera around the minister's powers and notifications that the minister gives. We all see at times the very significant attention to the ministerial power around the ability to cancel visas, particularly when it involves tennis players or who knows what that captures the public's imagination. It is a power that can bring great attention and fame upon an immigration minister that exercises that discretion.

But when it comes to, more broadly, matters around these amendments to do with recordkeeping and paperwork, I want to briefly put on the record that it's very important, when we're talking about our migration system, that there are two elements to it. There's a policy element and there's an implementation element. Policy is always within the purview of the government of the day to make decisions around the size and scope of the migration program, and to bring forward proposals to change, sometimes legislatively, the way or standards which will be applied to visas, the complexity of visas and all the rest. We could all have a lot to say about that.

As a local member of parliament, I would say visa applications, after NDIS, are the most significant complexity around case management in my office, and I would be surprised if most members weren't fairly similar there. It can have additional complexity because people applying for visas are not citizens of the country; they're usually working with someone who is a constituent of yours that is looking to support them. There are also times when people don't have a citizen to support them, but they might be on a particular visa in the country and looking for your support as the local member. I know that everyone happily supports people, even if they're not on the electoral roll, to get the best outcome they can.

There have been two significant moments of enormous burden on the department in recent times. The evacuation of Kabul had an enormous burden on processing capability, with the sheer volume of that. The other was helping people fleeing the conflict in Ukraine. I commend the current and previous government, the ministers and the departmental structures that were there to help with those extremely unpredictable circumstances. I reflect on my experiences of helping people from an administrative point of view. These comments are relevant to this bill, which is looking to make changes to the streamlining of the processing of decision-making around this. I think we could look for opportunities to improve the way in which the implementation of whatever the government of the day's position and policy is around migration and visa processing. This is in no way a comment against the current government whatsoever. I think it's an ongoing issue, of decades into the past, and may well be very difficult to solve in an optimal way for decades into the future.

Clearly we all have experiences when we're working with particular people that are having an enormous amount of uncertainty around the waiting time that they experience in seeking to get decisions made. I respect and understand that that's a function of two things. Firstly, it's a function of needing to have a very high standard to process and ensure that the sort of people being granted visas are fit and proper people to be granted visas. Secondly, you cannot have a situation where people get special treatment because you as a member of parliament think they've got a particularly compelling reason why they need to be urgently considered, because almost everyone waiting for a visa has probably got the same kind of very good cases and reasons for that. So I look to any opportunity for us to consider legislative change that potentially, as technology develops in particular, allows the bureaucracy to move in a more efficient churn.

It should always be up to the government of the day to determine what the scale and scope of the migration program is, but at times—I have been here for four years, and for three of them I was part of a government, and these experiences frankly have nothing to do with who is in government. At times, I think we can look for opportunities for the bureaucracy to absolutely be implementing what the government's policy is when it comes to migration. If there are legislative opportunities, there are other opportunities. I would love to be part of discussing them and considering them in this chamber, because I think that the way in which we work through, on an individual basis, the sort of challenges that people can have at times—I actually think members of parliament are probably some of the great experts in our society around ways in which we could improve the experience and the way in which those decisions are made; not changing the outcome but perhaps improving the timeliness. Given this is a bill, we understand, with the intention to improve the way in which ministerial decisions are made and to reduce some of the litigation and appeals, I just put those comments on the record as part of contributing to the debate on this bill.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I acknowledge the contribution just now of the member for Sturt, and I assure him that building an immigration system that works in the national interest and is administratively efficient is a focus of the government. I acknowledge in particular the work of those officials of the immigration function in the home affairs department to ensure some of the concerns that he has set out—concerns which I believe are shared by every member of this place—are being attended to. This will, of course, be an iterative process. I look forward to ongoing debate in this place and in other forums with all members and senators on these matters.

The Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will amend the Migration Act 1958. The amendments in the bill will support improved and fairer processes under the Migration Act. They improve the effectiveness of the notification of decisions and actions under the act and reduce inefficient processes relating to the making of valid protection visa applications for dual citizens. The commonsense amendments in this bill strengthen the notification framework for visa related decisions. They do this by reinforcing existing mechanisms, ensuring that those affected have the best chance of actually receiving the relevant documents. These also mirror other legislative frameworks by adopting a substantial compliance notification framework, providing greater certainty in relation to the notification of visa related decisions and actions for both the minister and the recipient of such notices.

This bill also removes the prohibition on nationals of two or more countries from lodging a valid application for a protection visa. Subdivision AK of division 3 of part 2 of the Migration Act currently prevents any person who is a national of two or more countries from lodging a valid application for a protection visa but allows the minister to lift the bar if it's in the public interest to do so. The removal of this subdivision from the Migration Act will improve administrative efficiencies, minimising the risk of family separation and streamlining the process for dual nationals seeking protection in Australia. The government's position remains unchanged. Those who can avail themselves of protection from a third country because of nationality or some other right to re-enter or reside in a third country should seek protection from the third country instead of applying for a protection visa in Australia.

This bill deserves support, and I commend the bill to the House.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.